Question for the non EP
- Thread starter earl40
- Start date
- Status
I'm not Non but what is the difference? How are the two defined?
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Non-EP here.
All "Contemporary Praise Songs" are already hymns.
Hymns by definition are praise songs to God.
The age of a hymn / praise song doesn't make the song acceptable. Some new songs are fantastic. Some old songs are absolutely dreadful.
The content of a song makes it acceptable for worship.
All "Contemporary Praise Songs" are already hymns.
Hymns by definition are praise songs to God.
The age of a hymn / praise song doesn't make the song acceptable. Some new songs are fantastic. Some old songs are absolutely dreadful.
The content of a song makes it acceptable for worship.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
What is the difference between a hymn and a spiritual song?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Non-EP (but dominant psalmody if possible).
I don't know much about music, but "old timey" hymns have a certain stately rhythm to them. Praise songs, by contrast, go more like this.
"Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....
I don't know much about music, but "old timey" hymns have a certain stately rhythm to them. Praise songs, by contrast, go more like this.
"Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....
Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
Lol. Have you had the pleasure of listening to that song? I have helped out at children's summer camp the past couple years, and that song is a regular. It is surely cringeworthy.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Of course I agree with you. Just trying to see how a non EP justifies what they believe to be the difference between a contemporary song with a song that at one time was contemporary.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
We were forced to go to Praise Night at my liberal baptist college. So yes, I've been in a few marathons.
MichaelNZ
Puritan Board Freshman
Our church has some modern songs such as "In Christ Alone", "You're the Word of God", and "Come, People of the Risen King" but played on traditional instruments (organ/piano and sometimes violins). I think it really is about the content of the songs rather than the time that they were written.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
When it's arranged and played on a pipe organ using at least two ranks and the foot pedals. I'd be willing to entertain argument that a string quartet could be substituted for the organ.
My knee-jerk and unthoughtful response is that tunes are important: anything after 1750 is immediately suspect (that's when Bach died). I'll grant that Sine Nomine by Ralph Vaughn Williams in 1906, and a few others, are pretty good tunes, too.
As for the words, those written after 1830 or so are scrutinized heavily. 1830 was a turning point toward the bad in theology, philosophy, evangelicalism, etc.
That's the thumbnail rule. Of course, the hymns still have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
(BTW, I'm pretty much EP myself, but I'm not in a position to impose that on others).
As for the words, those written after 1830 or so are scrutinized heavily. 1830 was a turning point toward the bad in theology, philosophy, evangelicalism, etc.
That's the thumbnail rule. Of course, the hymns still have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
(BTW, I'm pretty much EP myself, but I'm not in a position to impose that on others).
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Take that last step.
One thing that convinced me of EP is that there is no hymn, old or new, that I do not scrutinize, unlike the psalms which are beyond scrutiny.
Last edited:
ReformedInSweden
Puritan Board Freshman
I would agree here!What's defined as "hymn" over here is a song with stanzas and some theological content that's supposed to teach you something. It might be false theology of course....
But it's a kind of a mini sermon written in rhyme.And wasn't this the purpose of the hymns Luther wrote? To let the congregation learn the theology by singing it and learning it by heart that way?
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
I've understood that a hymn was a scripture paraphrase and spiritual song is more original. (And yes, this definition of "hymn" would make many of the metrical psalms into hymns.) Concerning instruments, they are predominantly circumstantial, but I think it is wise to stay away from some of the instruments more associated with secular music, though there is nothing ungodly about the instrument itself. Certain instruments may also may be more appropriate in another cultural.
All things are lawful, but not all are helpful.
All things are lawful, but not all are helpful.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Tim,
Out of curiosity, where did you get those definitions for hymns and spiritual songs?
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Earl:
Your question lacks needed information about your purpose in asking it. It sounds like you may be trying to make a point about Psalm-singing by referring to Paul's use of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." Perhaps you assume that non-EP folks defend their position by arguing that the Bible mentions three broad categories of worship music while EP folks see these as contents of the psalter. Therefore, you challenge non-EPs to explain the difference.
But there are plenty of non-EP people (like myself) who will readily acknowledge that "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" might be referring to the psalter and probably weren't seen by Paul as having a lot of difference between them. We have other reasons for believing it's right to sing songs not found in the psalter. So we have little reason to try to explain the difference between hymns and spiritual songs. It doesn't really matter for the position we take.
Now, if you're asking about general language usage in the church today, and how some worship music gets labelled a "hymn" while other music is thought of as a "spiritual song" or maybe a "praise song," that's a very different question. I'm not convinced those modern labels have much to do with Paul's labels, though, which I suspect is at the heart of your question. Correct?
Your question lacks needed information about your purpose in asking it. It sounds like you may be trying to make a point about Psalm-singing by referring to Paul's use of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." Perhaps you assume that non-EP folks defend their position by arguing that the Bible mentions three broad categories of worship music while EP folks see these as contents of the psalter. Therefore, you challenge non-EPs to explain the difference.
But there are plenty of non-EP people (like myself) who will readily acknowledge that "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" might be referring to the psalter and probably weren't seen by Paul as having a lot of difference between them. We have other reasons for believing it's right to sing songs not found in the psalter. So we have little reason to try to explain the difference between hymns and spiritual songs. It doesn't really matter for the position we take.
Now, if you're asking about general language usage in the church today, and how some worship music gets labelled a "hymn" while other music is thought of as a "spiritual song" or maybe a "praise song," that's a very different question. I'm not convinced those modern labels have much to do with Paul's labels, though, which I suspect is at the heart of your question. Correct?
I know your poking at me is good-natured. But really, there is no "last step" for me.
I am confessional, LBCF, and am bound by what our church follows. In that regard, I sing the hymns, songs, and spiritual songs with as much faith as God gives me.
We do sing more psalms than anything else, and our congregation seems edified by all that.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I was simply asking the mindset of what people who are not EP on what is the difference between an old traditional hymn and a contemporary praise song written today. As Chris said in post #2 there is no difference, to which I agree with. What one prefers be the difference be it time, content, or what ever, man made preference seems to the the standard based on what man scrutinizes to be right and correct in God's eyes.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I am grateful to hear you understand I hold you in no derision but only posted what I did concerning what you wrote..."I'm pretty much EP myself"....pretty much is is not EP.
I see this as saying one is a little pregnant.
EP refers to "exclusive psalmody." So non-EP means including songs with text not from the Psalms. It doesn't refer to tunes or styles. It only refers to the text that is sung.
"areeep"??? I have no idea what that means.
Non EP means to most of us:
1. Uninspired man-written text for a religious song and/or
2. Text from the Bible that is not from the Book of Psalms.
Some EP adherents historically have allowed other "songs" from Scripture, but strictly speaking, that is not EP as most use it today (at least here on the PB).
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
I'd say applying the "hymn" or "praise song" label is a judgment call depending mostly on a number of style factors and maybe also on theological richness. If it would work as a decent poem if it weren't set to music, then chances are folks will label it a "hymn." But there's no hard and fast rule for how to apply those labels, nor does there need to be.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I agree that a hymn in today's thinking it is just that.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
My pastor. The resources below may be useful:
Calvin:
Fesko:
The Greek words used certainly don't mean Psalms from a historical linguistic context. Whether Paul meant Psalms only is not in the scope of this thread.
Thanks for your response Victor, and yes, I meant to say are EP!
So would it be correct to say that non-EP churches then allow for contemporary/modern worship songs to be sung?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
